First of all, Delpo had better indoor results than Murray (won Basel and Vienna), so it's highly debatable whether at WTF, Murray was a tougher opponent than Delpo (on form). That theory is pretty much invalidated by the fact Fed lost his match vs Delpo (second match he lost to him indoor over a short time) but not vs Murray. Djoko won his matches vs both Murray and Delpo, and there is no indication it would have mattered 1 bit in what order he played them. If Fed can beat opponents only in a certain order, he has a problem for sure. Djoko, on top of having the tougher RR group, had to beat the 6 time champion and title holder to win the title. The most dominant player EVER at WTF. So there is no doubt he did it the hardest possible way. And he did it with panache without losing a match and without losing a set in the final. Class.

Click to expand...

Djokovic deserved that title, no doubt. I'm not questioning it. He was far and away the best player at WTF 2012 and would have won it regardless of how his draw was. But just because he would've won it anyway doesn't mean his draw was tougher. It is debatable. Like I said, better face Murray in the roundrobins than in the semifinal. And don't give me that stuff about Del Potro being in great form. He lost to Ferrer. He was playing well but it doesn't take a genius to see Murray is the bigger threat.

You're not the brightest bulb in the room either. You said Federer would never make #1 if Djokovic, Nadal and Murray were the same age and then suggest that Federer making #1 at 31 was your point? That sounds incredibly... unclever... to put it mildly.

Click to expand...

You still haven't understood MY point. That if Nadal, Djoko and Murray had been the same age as Fed, Fed may never have become #1 to begin with, given that Nadal was infinitely more precocious than him and he would have owned early 20s Fed big time and both Djoko and Murray would have challenged him way more than Rod or Blake on hard, so he would never have acquired the confidence and resume he has now in the first place.

You still haven't understood MY point. That if Nadal, Djoko and Murray had been the same age as Fed, Fed may never have become #1 to begin with, given that Nadal was infinitely more precocious than him and he would have owned early 20s Fed big time and both Djoko and Murray would have challenged him way more than Rod or Blake on hard, so he would never have acquired the confidence and resume he has now in the first place.

I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.

I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.

Click to expand...

That's because most of Federer's losses to Djokovic and Murray have come post-prime and he is still playing and competing on Hards (Djokovic and Murray best surface) and on Clay (Nadal's best surface). Don't you find it weird that Federer and Murray have never played on Clay (Murray's worst surface, where Federer is definitely much better) and Federer and Djokovic have only played once on Grass (Djokovic's worst surface and Federer's best)? And don't even get me started on the number of matches Federer and Nadal have played on Clay (Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best). All things considered, Federer's record is incredibly good against Djokovic AND Nadal (yes, Nadal too). He could've done better against Murray but he still won the all-important matches. Considering the match-up advantage Nadal has against Federer, him being 5 years younger, half their matches being on Clay, and Nadal being one of the 5 greatest players of all time, a 10-18 record is something to be proud of.

That's because most of Federer's losses to Djokovic and Murray have come post-prime .

Click to expand...

Don't think so. Nadal beat Fed for the first time at 17, Djoko at 20, Murray too and Fed was the #1, the others nowhere near their prime. If they had been the same age, it would have been worse since Fed's level in 2000-2002 was considerably worse than his 2004-2007 level. He would have had to change his game to adapt and who knows if he could have?

Don't think so. Nadal beat Fed for the first time at 17, Djoko at 20, Murray too and Fed was the #1, the others nowhere near their prime. If they had been the same age, it would have been worse since Fed's level in 2000-2002 was considerably worse than his 2004-2007 level. He would have had to change his game to adapt and who knows if he could have?

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about Nadal. Nadal could and can hurt Federer at any age when he was at any age. Murray beat Federer once in his prime. Even Djokovic beat him once in his prime. On the other hand, ******* took peak/prime Djokovic out at the French Open, Wimbledon, and almost did at the US Open too. Not to mention the bagel beat-down at Cincinnati. Prime Federer would comfortably deal with Djokovic (with a few losses, of course). He can still beat Murray (who is possibly hitting his peak) at 31. You can't see it because you're biased. Federer would actually benefit from being the same age as the other 3. He'd be racking up Calendar Year Grand Slams at the ages of 28, 29, 30, 31 or be coming pretty darned close to.

Her twisted logic is 31 year old Fed still became number 1 only because of the insurmountable confidence that the 25 year old Fed gained by playing a weak field. If Fed were to be in the same age group as the other 3, he would have never been a No 1 at 25 or 31.

Her twisted logic is 31 year old Fed still became number 1 only because of the insurmountable confidence that the 25 year old Fed gained by playing a weak field. If Fed were to be in the same age group as the other 3, he would have never been a No 1 at 25 or 31.

Is there any Nobel price award for such logic ?

Click to expand...

That's like saying Nadal would be a 0-time Slam Champion had he faced Rosol in the 2nd Round of the 2005 French Open :lol:

Someone always has to have a tougher draw, but it doesn't always turn out the way many would have thought. For example, Murray has been getting tough draws in the last couple of years that have opened up due to injuries and upsets.

This AO, on paper, Djokovic had an easier draw than Federer, but looking at how players have played so far, it's actually quite even. PHM is still a good player and Stepanek played very well, better than expected. In the other half, Paire and Davydenko hardly showed up. Djokovic will also have a tougher QF (do you think Roger wants to play Berdych?). I'd still say Roger has the tougher draw overall, but I'd say neither is particularly hard or easy.

It wasn't that way when I was playing tournaments in juniors, wasn't like that when I played the Satellite tour, wasn't like that even when I play tournaments now in my 50's. The 1st seed is always supposed to get the best draw. Of course, there are always head to head problems. For example, and 100th ranked player might be hell for a top player on grass.

Just enjoy living in a generation with so many great players. Who cares who would have been the best IF Fed had been 5 years younger. (see previous post ) We'll never know. Only thing that's certain is that there are some pretty damn good players around at the moment. So back to my opening statement: just enjoy it instead of *****ing about it.

Don't think so. Nadal beat Fed for the first time at 17, Djoko at 20, Murray too and Fed was the #1, the others nowhere near their prime. If they had been the same age, it would have been worse since Fed's level in 2000-2002 was considerably worse than his 2004-2007 level. He would have had to change his game to adapt and who knows if he could have?

Click to expand...

yeah, that's just you being clueless, that's what they said when hewitt, nalbandian, agassi , henman owned him before 2004 ..... since then he absolutely crushed them ...

face it, peak federer would be heads and shoulders above all of them except nadal on clay ....

and if they were of the same age, fed-nadal would've played more matches outside of clay and federer would've more of those, gaining more confidence rather than losing confidence because he happened to go consistently deep in CC tourneys whereas rafa was getting blasted off court by the likes of blake, youzhny etc in HC tournaments ...

That is exactly my point. Fed established his domination before Nadal, Djoko and Murray broke through. He was very dominant and had tons of confidence (from beating up on Roddick, Hewitt and co). If instead of those guys, his contemporaries had been Murray, Djoko and Nadal, you think he would have established such a crushing domination in the first place? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Huh? What has that got anything to do with Federer taking out Murray and Djokovic, when well out of his prime and reaching no. 1?
Hell, if this Fed can give the so-called strong-era guys a run for their money (not to mention with all the "slow-court" advantages they have for their backboarding), he sure as hell can take care of them with a younger set of legs.
Not to mention Fed had his struggles with Hewitt too. He overcame those and he would overcome these guys well enough.

I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.

Click to expand...

What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. At any point. Bar of course, a few losses. You have nothing to show for the kind of argument you're trying to make. Not to mention, previously dominant or not, Djokovic-Murray, with their youth should've been able to keep him at bay. They have an inherent advantage too, with courts slowing down all over the place. They haven't been able to do it. Instead, Federer's the guy Djokovic struggled with the most in his dominant year. His game is the one that gives Djokovic fits more than anyone else's even at his very best.

What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. At any point. You have nothing to show for the kind of argument you're trying to make. Not to mention, previously dominant or not, Djokovic-Murray, with their youth should've been able to keep him at bay. They have an inherent advantage too, with courts slowing down all over the place. They haven't been able to do it. Instead, Federer's the guy Djokovic struggled with the most in his dominant year. His game is the one that gives Djokovic fits more than anyone else's even at his very best.

Next time, do try for a cogent argument.

Click to expand...

Veroniquem is losing it. With Rafa's absence she has become a FULL blown Roger Federer hater. It's exactly what tennis_pro said about her. I feel it's true

What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. .

Click to expand...

Well, if you're gonna rewrite history, then there's no point in discussing anything. Fed has never struggled against Murray? So why does Murray have a winning head to head vs him? Why did he beat him in a master as early as 2006 when Murray was still a baby (and Fed at the peak of his prime?). He never struggled against Djoko? So why did he lose 5 slam matches to him (and counting)? Why did he lose a master final to him when Djoko was just 20? How many weeks did Fed keep #1 spot in 2012? That's exactly what would have happened if those guys had all been the same age and worse. Because both Djoko and Nadal had better records than Fed during their formative years (early 20s). Fed would have struggled to make it to the top. He would have been one of the top players, maybe keep #1 for a few weeks a year but would not have dominated the other 3 the way he did Roddick and Davy who couldn't beat him at all. Any unbiassed person could easily see the next generation would have beaten Fed way more often and that they have weapons against him that the others don't have.

Well, if you're gonna rewrite history, then there's no point in discussing anything. Fed has never struggled against Murray? So why does Murray have a winning head to head vs him? Why did he beat him in a master as early as 2006 when Murray was still a baby (and Fed at the peak of his prime?). He never struggled against Djoko? So why did he lose 5 slam matches to him (and counting)? Why did he lose a master final to him when Djoko was just 20? How many weeks did Fed keep #1 spot in 2012? That's exactly what would have happened if those guys had all been the same age and worse. Because both Djoko and Nadal had better records than Fed during their formative years (early 20s). Fed would have struggled to make it to the top. He would have been one of the top players, maybe keep #1 for a few weeks a year but would not have dominated the other 3 the way he did Roddick and Davy who couldn't beat him at all. Any unbiassed person could easily see the next generation would have beaten Fed way more often and that they have weapons against him that the others don't have.

Click to expand...

I think mandy meant he never struggled vs Murray and Djokovic as much as he did to Nadal. Which is true since Nadal has troubled him the most. And I don't think you can say 2012 is exactly what would have happened if Murray, Nadal and Djokovic were Federer's age. I mean FEDERER would be younger.He got to number 1 as a 31 year old up against guys in their mid 20s, he would do better in his mid 20s. Of course the others would dent his success, but then again Federer at 31 is doing pretty well, if his young rivals were also 31 I like Federer's chances of winning a few more slams and being number one quite a bit. It runs both ways - if Federer had to deal with Nadal, Djoko and Murray in his earlier days and they were the same age he would also be dealing with 30 year olds instead of prime rivals.

Imo, Federer would suffer vs Djokovic on Plexi cushion, maybe even rebound ace (though less) but I don't see him losing much at the US Open where even peak Djokovic vs older Federer has had it very tough. Murray is hard to say because he's beaten him loads but not in a slam. Nadal would be a threat possible everywhere but still has only made 2 AO finals and 2 US finals (we will see how many more) so it's not a certainty that they would meet all that often. Nadal would probably be a wimbledon champ before Federer but after a couple of years I think Federer would have taken over and won more titles eventually.

LMAO at "federer would have a FEW weeks at number one each year" Yeah I'm sure 22-26 year old Federer wouldn't do any better than his 31 year old self. Federer is a better all surface player than the other top 4.

Well, if you're gonna rewrite history, then there's no point in discussing anything. Fed has never struggled against Murray? So why does Murray have a winning head to head vs him? Why did he beat him in a master as early as 2006 when Murray was still a baby (and Fed at the peak of his prime?). He never struggled against Djoko? So why did he lose 5 slam matches to him (and counting)? Why did he lose a master final to him when Djoko was just 20? How many weeks did Fed keep #1 spot in 2012? That's exactly what would have happened if those guys had all been the same age and worse. Because both Djoko and Nadal had better records than Fed during their formative years (early 20s). Fed would have struggled to make it to the top. He would have been one of the top players, maybe keep #1 for a few weeks a year but would not have dominated the other 3 the way he did Roddick and Davy who couldn't beat him at all. Any unbiassed person could easily see the next generation would have beaten Fed way more often and that they have weapons against him that the others don't have.

Click to expand...

The thing is whatever Fed loses during his formative years, he gains in his later years like now, where god knows if Nadal would even be playing, and Djoker and Murray most likely would not be as good as Fed is at 31. It remains to be seen I guess, but IMO that is what would have happened.